1 2026:CGHC:10840 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 67 of 2026 1 - Smt. Sangeeta Singh W/o Shri Ashutosh Singh Aged About 47 Years R/o House No. H-8, Shardhaman, Bhavna Nagar, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Ashutosh Singh S/o Late Shri Mahendra Singh Thakur Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. H-8, Shardhaman, Bhavna Nagar, Shanker Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - Smt. Subhagini Kapila Ekka W/o Shri Nilam Khalkho Aged About 45 Years R/o Hig- 104, Vijeta Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Celesteela W/o Late Shri Tarsius Ekka Aged About 75 Years R/o Hig- 104, Vijeta Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), Through Its Poa Respondent No. 1 Smt. Subhagini Kapila Ekka, Age About 45 Years, R/o Hig- 104, Vijeta Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Rajdeep Ekka S/o Late Shri Tarsius Ekka Aged About 40 Years R/o Hig- 104, Vijeta Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), Through Its Poa Respondent No. 1 Smt. Subhagini Kapila Ekka, Age About 45 Years, R/o Hig- 104, Vijeta Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Jayanti Ekka W/o Shri Prabodh Tirkey Aged About 39 Years R/o Hig- 104, Vijeta Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), Through Its Poa Respondent No. 1 Smt. Subhagini Kapila Ekka, YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.03.02 17:12:19 +0530 2 Age About 45 Years, R/o Hig- 104, Vijeta Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Kunwari Minj W/o Shri Kristofer Minj Aged About 62 Years R/o Anand Niketan, Awanti Vihar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, C.G. ... Non-applicants (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicants : Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 02.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. By filing the present Civil Revision, the applicants have assailed the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 24.01.2026 passed by the Court of 6th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 201A/2025, whereby the application preferred by the applicants/defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently submits that the learned trial Court has committed a grave jurisdictional error and material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction by dismissing the application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is contended that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that a meaningful and not merely formal reading of 3 the plaint would clearly demonstrate that the suit, as framed, is barred by law and does not disclose a legally sustainable cause of action. According to learned counsel, the pleadings in the plaint unequivocally reveal that the dispute raised by the plaintiffs substantially relates to identification of the suit property on the basis of four-sided boundaries and alleged encroachment founded upon boundary description in the sale deed, which in essence is a dispute pertaining to demarcation and boundary determination. 4. Elaborating further, learned counsel submits that such questions squarely fall within the ambit of “any question relating to the demarcation or placement of boundary marks” under Chapter X of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and are specifically barred from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by virtue of Section 257(g) of the Code. It is urged that where a statute expressly bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and provides a special mechanism before the revenue authorities for adjudication of such disputes, the Civil Court cannot assume jurisdiction indirectly by entertaining a suit camouflaged as one for declaration and injunction. The trial Court, it is submitted, erred in holding that the issue involved a mixed question of law and fact, whereas the bar to jurisdiction is apparent from the averments made in the plaint itself. 4 5. It is next contended that the plaintiffs have deliberately and mala fide undervalued the suit to evade payment of proper court fee. Learned counsel points out that the plaint itself admits that construction has already been completed over the disputed land and that the plaintiffs have sought recovery of vacant possession after demolition of the structure standing thereon. In such circumstances, the relief claimed is not a mere declaratory or injunctive relief simpliciter, but one for possession of immovable property coupled with consequential relief, which mandatorily requires payment of ad valorem court fee on the market value of the property. The learned trial Court, it is argued, failed to examine the real nature of the relief claimed and mechanically accepted the valuation adopted by the plaintiffs. 6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed strong reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Bajoria and others v. Hemant Kumar Jalan and others, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 764, wherein it has been authoritatively held that where from a plain reading of the plaint none of the reliefs sought can be granted under the law, such a suit ought not to be permitted to proceed to trial and must be nipped in the bud. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has reiterated that the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, though drastic, casts a duty upon the Court to scrutinize the averments in the plaint and determine whether the suit is barred by any law or fails to disclose a cause of action. If the suit is found 5 to be barred or vexatious on the face of the pleadings, the Court must terminate the proceedings at the threshold so as to prevent abuse of the process of law. 7. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366, wherein the principles governing rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC have been elaborately discussed. The Court has held that the power under Order VII Rule 11 may be exercised at any stage of the suit and that “cause of action” comprises a bundle of material facts which must be clearly disclosed in the plaint. It has further been emphasized that if by clever drafting an illusion of cause of action is created, the Court must look beyond the form and examine the substance of the pleadings, and if the litigation is found to be vexatious or barred by law, it must be rejected at the earliest stage. Placing reliance on these authoritative pronouncements, learned counsel submits that the impugned order suffers from patent illegality and deserves to be set aside, and consequently the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the documents available with the present civil revision. 9. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced and on perusal of the plaint as well as the application preferred under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it appears that the core issue involved in the 6 present matter pertains to the maintainability of the civil suit and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of the specific bar pleaded by the applicants under Section 257(g) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. The contention of the applicants is that the suit, though couched as one for declaration, injunction and possession, essentially involves a dispute relating to demarcation and boundary determination, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue authorities. The further contention relates to alleged undervaluation of the suit and insufficiency of court fees. 10. In the present case, only learned counsel for the applicants is heard at this stage. Having regard to the nature of the controversy and the grounds urged in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, this Court is of the considered view that the primary question requiring examination is whether, on a meaningful reading of the plaint, the suit is barred by law or fails to disclose a cause of action so as to warrant rejection at the threshold. The said issue is required to be examined strictly on the basis of the averments contained in the plaint and the documents relied upon therein, in accordance with the settled principles governing Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 11. From perusal of the order dated 24.01.2026 passed by the learned 6th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 201A/2025, it transpires that the learned trial Court has dismissed 7 the applications dated 18.07.2025 and 21.08.2025 preferred by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as well as defendant No. 3 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. 12. The learned trial Court, after noticing the pleadings of the parties and the nature of relief claimed in the suit, recorded that the plaintiffs have instituted the suit seeking declaration of title over part of Khasra No. 732 and 761/3 measuring 1819 square feet, permanent injunction in respect of the disputed land and recovery of vacant possession. The defendants, in their respective applications, raised objections that the suit is barred under Section 257(g) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, that the suit has been undervalued and insufficient court fee has been affixed, that the plaint does not disclose cause of action, and that there is non-joinder of necessary parties. 13. The trial Court further noted the contention of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that they had purchased Khasra No. 732/6 including 761/13 admeasuring 1504 sq.ft. by registered sale deed dated 24.04.2024, that their names were mutated in revenue records, and that construction had been undertaken after obtaining due permission from the Municipal Corporation. It also took note of the contention that the suit property, being converted residential land situated in Maharishi Valmiki Ward, Raipur, ought to have been valued on the basis of prevailing guideline market rates and that 8 ad valorem court fee was payable on the combined value of land and construction. 14. While dealing with the plea of bar of jurisdiction under Section 257(g) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, the learned trial Court observed that the suit is one for declaration of title, permanent injunction and possession, and that such reliefs are within the domain of Civil Court. It was held that the dispute, as reflected from the plaint, cannot be said to be purely one relating to demarcation or placement of boundary marks so as to attract the statutory bar at the threshold. The Court further recorded that the question whether the suit is barred by law or whether the plaintiffs have undervalued the suit involves consideration of facts and, therefore, constitutes a mixed question of law and fact. 15. The trial Court also observed that for deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the averments in the plaint alone are to be considered and the defence raised by the defendants cannot be looked into at that stage. Upon perusal of the plaint, it was concluded that the plaintiffs have disclosed a cause of action for filing the suit and that the valuation adopted by them, having been made in accordance with their understanding of the nature of relief sought, cannot be rejected at the threshold without evidence. 16. Consequently, holding that the grounds urged by the defendants do not make out a case for rejection of the plaint under Order VII 9 Rule 11 CPC, the learned trial Court rejected both the applications dated 18.07.2025 and 21.08.2025 and directed that the suit shall proceed in accordance with law. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137, has held that the question of jurisdiction should be decided as a preliminary issue if it goes to the root of the matter. 18. Further, in Chatterjee Petrochem Company and another v. Haldia Petrochemicals Limited and others, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 574, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that where a jurisdictional bar under statute exists (such as under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act or Commercial Courts Act), the Court must first examine the maintainability of the suit before proceeding on merits. 19. In addition, in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society presented by its Chairman v. Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction, it must return the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the proper Court. 20. Having heard learned counsel for the applicants at length and upon perusal of the impugned order dated 24.01.2026, this Court 10 finds that the learned trial Court has considered the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and has recorded a finding that the plaint, on a meaningful reading, discloses a cause of action and that the relief claimed cannot be said to be ex facie barred by law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments contained in the plaint and the documents relied upon therein are to be looked into and the defence of the defendants cannot be taken into consideration at that stage. The trial Court has applied the said principle and has declined to reject the plaint at the threshold. 21. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that the objections raised by the defendants with regard to (i) proper valuation of the suit and sufficiency of court fee, (ii) bar of jurisdiction under Section 257(g) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, and (iii) maintainability of the suit in its present form, are issues which go to the root of the matter and materially affect the competence of the Civil Court to entertain and try the suit. Though these questions may not warrant rejection of the plaint at the inception, they certainly require adjudication at the earliest stage so that unnecessary protraction of the trial is avoided. 22. In view of the above, while this Court does not find any patent illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the trial Court so as to warrant interference by setting aside the rejection of the 11 application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it is deemed appropriate, in the interest of justice, to issue suitable directions to ensure early determination of foundational issues. The ends of justice would be best subserved if the trial Court frames specific issues relating to valuation, court fee and jurisdiction and decides the same in accordance with law before proceeding further with the trial on merits. 23. Accordingly, the learned trial Court is directed to frame, inter alia, the following specific issues: (i) Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, and whether sufficient court fee has been paid in accordance with the provisions of the Court Fees Act? (ii) Whether the suit is barred under Section 257(g) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code or under any other statutory provision, thereby affecting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court? and (iii) Whether the plaint discloses a legally sustainable cause of action in respect of the reliefs claimed? 24. The learned trial Court shall treat the aforesaid issues, particularly those relating to valuation and jurisdiction, as preliminary issues in terms of Order XIV Rule 2 CPC and shall afford reasonable opportunity to the parties to advance their submissions and adduce evidence, if required, confined strictly to those issues. The said issues shall be adjudicated by a reasoned and speaking order at the earliest possible opportunity, preferably within a 12 period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 25. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties and all issues are left open to be decided independently by the trial Court in accordance with law. 26. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present Civil Revision stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh